In Beevor´s book on Crete he says that during the six previous months ( I think meaning Dec 1940-May 1941 ) Wavell did not consider Crete as an important position to defend and did nothing to strengthen it ( or something like this...)??

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fall_of_crete.htm

In March 1941, command of the island passed to Major-General E C Weston. He asked Wavell for three brigades to be based on the island. However, the British were facing difficulties in North Africa and Wavell simply could not spare the men. Therefore, Crete’s commanding officer had to command an island he believed was not properly defended.

On April 30th 1941, Wavell flew to Crete to meet with Weston. Wavell informed Weston that he was being relieved of his command and being replaced by the New Zealander Major-General Freyberg.

----------

The question: Anyone know what Wavell´s plans were for Crete if Greece should fall or did he not consider the island important. Can anybody help if he had planned to leave the island undefended, maybe? But Churchill wanted to hold onto the island?

Was it Wavell who said about Churchill: " He always expects you to come up with the rabbit fom the hat..."

__________________

Kai,

Where was Wavell going to find a Division to sit on Crete?

I'll dig through my books and see what was around.

PS Read On to Tripoli in the What if thread for a well considered option made up of SWAG's and complete BS.

__________________
Whe're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful wizard of OZ - 6 Australian Infantry Div, Bardia January 1941

A very significant point which appears to be absent Kai, is that at the contingency planning stage, (as in ‘in the event that’ – ‘responsibility for X lays with’), the survey of Crete and defence planning lay with the French. Not only Wavell but the British as a whole were unprepared to act on Crete as it was never intended to be their responsibility.

Once we moved from the phoney to the hot war, events as we know were rapid and catastrophic for the Allies. France fell, Italy declared in favour of Germany, and Britain became the only unoccupied (mostly) co-belligerent left in Europe and Scandinavia.

Wavell never had anything like the levels of men and materiels Monty had, and (IMHO), being a first class commander did an outstanding job with what he had. While holding Crete was desirable, he saw it as impractical as holding British East Africa. His main task was the all important Suez Canal. At the time Churchill (who had never previously met him), called him to London to discuss Crete, Wavell was in the process of moving westward along the North African coast securing ports. He pointed out to send forces to Crete – with no defence plan in place and no realistic air cover – would mean a severe reduction or a full halt in coastal progress. Churchill had no logical military argument to counter this and bullied Wavell into doing as he wanted. In his rhetoric, Churchill went way over the top and as much as accused him of lack of moral fibre. Wavell, a military gentleman of the old school, apparently took this in silence and followed orders, but the damage between the two was done.

Cunningham and the Navy concurred with Wavell, though valiantly played their part as usual, which cost them dearly. If Wavell had been allowed to follow his superior intentions, three things, I believe, would have resulted. First the obvious, a great number of men, equipment and ships would have been saved for employment in and around North Africa. Secondly, the working relationship with his Commander-in-Chief, Churchill, and perception of regard would not have been damaged, and at such a critical time. Thirdly, if Wavell had continued to secure the North African ports, where would Rommel have landed?

No.9

Thanx No 9!

That helped alot in understanding the situation. I´m a bit surprised Beevor has left the French out of this equation and sarcastically leaves it all on Wavell´s shoulders...

[img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________

The Geordies 50th div had some detachements sent to Crete didn't they? I cannot remember when though. I just seem to remember from Patrick Delaforces book 'Monty's Northern legions' (about the 50th and 15th divs) that a brigade (could it be the 151st Durham brigade?) was sent to Crete.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

Kai, re-reading my post above, less tired this time, parts are compacted and misleading. I can’t edit my own post, being just a member, so ask if you would delete everything except the first paragraph please.

No.9

I would think you could delete your own posting but in case you cannot, No 9, I´m sure Otto can.

__________________

I reckon you should leave the post as it stands - one of these days ( I keep telling myself... ) I'll read much deeper into the Wavell/Churchill situation ; I somehow have the feeling that Wavell 'drew a short straw' or at the very least, his style just didn't fit with what Churchill - fairly or unfairly - expected at the time.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

I want my post trimmed as stated because I can't edit it myself to clarify, correct and better express events.

It seems pointless if not ridiculous to leave it as is, and then make another post contradicting myself.

No.9